Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination. Allowing people of other faiths to live and worship independently of Islamic rule is not an option.

Qur’an (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

I would be remised not to bring up the story out of Oklahoma. It is a story that I read as workplace violence story. But I want to play just a little bit of the sound from the press conference that followed a gentleman who beheaded a woman in the context of his having been fired then he goes back to the plant. He stabs several people. One of the women, her head is severed.

Something strange is going on.

When Nidal Hasan killed thirteen people at Fort Hood, the Obama administration labeled it “workplace violence.” Hasan claimed he acted in defense of the Taliban.

One would expect that when a self-proclaimed “Soldier of Allah” shouting “Allahu Akhbar” opens fire on dozens of American citizens and soldiers, killing and maiming as many innocents as he can, it would have been called an act of terror.

The Boston Marathon bombing forced businesses to shut down for weeks and suffer thousands of dollars of losses, but nearly a year and half later, it appears that the federal government is unlikely to label the explosions as an act of terrorism for insurance claims.

To qualify for a terrorism designation under the federal law adopted after the 9/11 attacks, an event has to cause losses of $5 million or more. As of April 2014, Marathon bombing claims for property and business interruption and amounted to $1.9 million, according to a state report.

“After review of the events in Boston, the secretary has not determined that there has been an “act of terrorism” under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act,” a spokeswoman for the Department of the Treasury said in a statement on Thursday.

The Treasury Department has maintained this position for more than a year. Some local news reports Thursday inaccurately suggested that the department had made a new determination.

At Politico Joe Scarborough had some questions about this administration’s policies:

Their response, according to the Washington Post: There was also no indication that Alton Nolen was copying the beheadings of journalists in Syria by the Islamic State, the officials said, adding that they are treating this as an incident of “workplace violence.”

Really? Despite the fact that the attacker’s Facebook page had pictures of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, a gruesome beheading by ISIL, pictures celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers, and the promise that America would go up in flames, and also his declaration that “Islamic terrorists behead their victims’ because of a ‘precedent bestowed by their Prophet.”

No indication that Nolen was copying ISIL? No religious motivation? How stupid does the FBI think we are? Who exactly are they afraid of offending? ISIL?

And is political correctness now so pervasive throughout our government that the FBI can’t tell Americans the truth about the beheading of a grandmother in middle America out of fear of offending Muslims?

If the FBI weakly resorts to political correctness after a beheading on U.S. soil, can they really confront the evil America now faces and the threat of copycat killers?

The answer is no.

Opinion: How stupid does the FBI think we are?

That may be a bit unfair. The FBI has been largely eviscerated by the Obama DOJ. In short, the Obama DOJ has pretty much made Muslims and Islam off limits.

The Justice Department is set to announce broad restrictions on racial and religious profiling in federal investigations, including those involving matters of national security.

The expected ban comes amid heightened concerns of Islamic militant groups executing a terror attack on U.S. soil and was reportedly opposed by national security officials.

A Justice Department official told Fox News on Monday that outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder will announce the policy change in the coming weeks and that it will also put an end to profiling based on ethnicity and sexual orientation.

If someone kills a score of people while yelling “Allahu Akbar” the FBI is not allowed to look for a Muslim. What could go wrong?

We need to profile, it’s called criminal profiling. It’s calling behavioral profiling. Police officers don’t wake up and target people because of their race, their religion, their color, but when there’s enough intelligence information that the police have, to lead you to certain areas where you have to criminally profile, we’ve got to do it or I’ve got to tell you, we’re going to see a lost blood on the streets of this country.”

mistake to concede the point up front? Instead of Americans trying to persuade Muslims of the world that terrorism is un-Islamic, why shouldn’t Muslims be working harder to convince us?

Think about it. Whenever a tiny minority of bad actors hurts the reputation of its ethnicity, faith or cause by doing terrible things in the name of its ethnicity, faith or cause, the responsible thing is for the moderate, decent majority to cry “not in our name!” or “they don’t speak for us!”

That is what morally

decent Jews, Christians, atheists, whites, blacks, Italians, Irish, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, environmentalists and pretty much every other classification of people I can think of do whenever their cause is hijacked or their identity besmirched. Silence may not automatically imply consent, but it does invite suspicion of consent.

To be sure, there are Muslims who have had precisely this reaction as well. But can anyone deny that the world would be a better place if more Muslims felt — and demonstrated — that terrorists were giving them abad name?

The same vile acts committed by Muslims that are terrorist acts overseas fail to make the grade here, but returning vets and Tea Party members are considered potential terrorist threats. Calling the beheadings of James Foley and Steven Sotloff terrorist acts is peculiar, based on the Obama administration standards. They were journalists and they were in their workplace. Thus their murders were, strictly speaking, workplace violence.

Since the 9-11 attacks were conducted by Muslims living on US soil the Obama administration, had it been in office at the time, would most likely have labeled them “workplace violence” as well.